From: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "Julia Lawall" <julia@diku.dk>,
"Christopher Li" <sparse@chrisli.org>,
yi.zhu@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
"Harvey Harrison" <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>,
"Alexander Viro" <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org,
"Josh Triplett" <josh@freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c: Correct use of ! and &
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:30:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2e108260803050430o317d3e0dyed50e86cc4569746@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080305122010.GA999@elte.hu>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk> wrote:
>
> > There are some legitimate uses of !x & y which are actually of the
> > form !x & !y, where x and y are function calls. That is a not
> > particularly elegant way of getting both x and y to be evaluated and
> > then combining the results using "and". If such code is considered
> > acceptable, then perhaps the sparse patch should be more complicated.
>
> i tend to be of the opinion that the details in C source code should be
> visually obvious and should be heavily simplified down from what is
> 'possible' language-wise - with most deviations and complications that
> depart from convention considered an error. I'd consider "!fn1() &
> !fn2()" a borderline coding style violation in any case - and it costs
> nothing to change it to "!fn1() && !fn2()".
If someone writes (!x & !y) instead of (!x && !y) because both x and y
have to be evaluated, this means that both x and y have side effects.
Please keep in mind that the C language does not specify whether x or
y has to be evaluated first, so if x and y have to be evaluated in
that order, an expression like (!x & !y) can be the cause of very
subtle bugs. I prefer readability above brevity.
Bart Van Assche.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-05 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-26 20:44 Julia Lawall
2008-02-26 22:47 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-02-27 0:59 ` John W. Linville
2008-03-05 6:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-05 6:49 ` Christopher Li
2008-03-05 7:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-05 7:09 ` Harvey Harrison
2008-03-05 8:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-05 12:13 ` Derek M Jones
2008-03-05 8:55 ` Julia Lawall
2008-03-05 12:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-05 12:30 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2008-03-05 12:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-05 12:35 ` Julia Lawall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e2e108260803050430o317d3e0dyed50e86cc4569746@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@gmail.com \
--cc=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
--cc=ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=josh@freedesktop.org \
--cc=julia@diku.dk \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sparse@chrisli.org \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yi.zhu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®